We Need Gus Macpherson

[gc_SMFC]

11 hours ago, windae cleaner said:

McLean was out the door as Gus never rated him

He never rated any of the youth and wasn't afraid to voice it

Wasn't on speaking terms with one of the directors and Longwell

No wonder he didn't rate our youth, apart from releasing McLean absolutely none of them went on to prove that they were capable of playing to a higher standard.

 

McPherson always gets battered with the didn't rate youth stick. Which is nonsense considering he started Stephen McGinn, Craig Molly, Ryan McCay, David Barron and Chris Smith. There's probably a few others. It wasn't McPherson's fault the youth product of the time was nonexistent.

 

The only negative that can be said about McPherson is that he didn't have enough faith in his teams at times, but when we went out to attack we normally looked pretty good. 

[Ayrshire Saints]

15 hours ago, JJ McG said:

We should be making a move for Jack Ross now, working absolute wonders at Alloa.

The 1st club in the SPL outside the old firm to sack their manager will be all over him like a cheap suit.

Everyone was saying the same about Ian Murray when at Dumbarton and we all know how that panned out !

[Lord Pityme]

1 minute ago, Ayrshire Saints said:

Everyone was saying the same about Ian Murray when at Dumbarton and we all know how that panned out !

Everyone?

[STGBuddy]

My concern with Rae and Farrell is the way in which some of the players , particularly the younger ones, have been criticised publicly , I don't think that helps their confidence on the park or in the management team generally... I prefer them to do that business in the dressing room and back them in public, but that's just me 

Rae has also shown that he doesn't rate the academy/youth set up which has been part of us for many years now and that cant be helpful either

[gc_SMFC]

Just now, STGBuddy said:

My concern with Rae and Farrell is the way in which some of the players , particularly the younger ones, have been criticised publicly , I don't think that helps their confidence on the park or in the management team generally... I prefer them to do that business in the dressing room and back them in public, but that's just me 

Rae has also shown that he doesn't rate the academy/youth set up which has been part of us for many years now and that cant be helpful either

How has he shown he doesn't rate the academy? By playing players from it?

The obsession with the youth academy will do us long term damage. Just because they've come through our academy, doesn't mean they should be first team players when they aren't good enough.

We should be looking to develop players through the academy, but for it to be any level of success we need to be attracting potential youth players from across Europe, in the hope one can be sold, in order to fund the scouting of the next batch.

[FTOF]

He was very complementary about certain youth players, McAllister in particular, after the ICT game during the week.

He also gave Andrew McDonald his debut yesterday.

I'm not sure how that ties in with the misplaced assertion that he doesn't rate the academy and its products.

[Hambud]

Everyone was saying the same about Ian Murray when at Dumbarton and we all know how that panned out !

And who did Ian Murray have as his number 2 when he was the hot prospect?

[STGBuddy]

43 minutes ago, gc_SMFC said:

How has he shown he doesn't rate the academy? By playing players from it?

The obsession with the youth academy will do us long term damage. Just because they've come through our academy, doesn't mean they should be first team players when they aren't good enough.

We should be looking to develop players through the academy, but for it to be any level of success we need to be attracting potential youth players from across Europe, in the hope one can be sold, in order to fund the scouting of the next batch.

its not an obsession but years of bringing young players through has to be key to a club like ours.

If they aren't good enough then they shouldn't play..ironically though , some of them may get a chance if Rae cant trust, or motivate, the players he has.

Apologies, incorrect of me to say 'publicly criticise' but people involved with scouting and the youth set up have indicated that Rae has questioned the way in which they coach and play.

The starting line up yesterday had 3 players who have come through, with one taken off at half time and 6 players over the age of 30 in the starting line up? hardly the glowing promotion of the fountain of youth surely?

 

[Ayrshire Saints]

20 minutes ago, Hambud said:

And who did Ian Murray have as his number 2 when he was the hot prospect?

I wouldn't be rushing to appoint the monkey when his organ grinder has already failed - we must stop clamouring to repeat the same old mistakes.

[gc_SMFC]

49 minutes ago, STGBuddy said:

its not an obsession but years of bringing young players through has to be key to a club like ours.

If they aren't good enough then they shouldn't play..ironically though , some of them may get a chance if Rae cant trust, or motivate, the players he has.

Apologies, incorrect of me to say 'publicly criticise' but people involved with scouting and the youth set up have indicated that Rae has questioned the way in which they coach and play.

The starting line up yesterday had 3 players who have come through, with one taken off at half time and 6 players over the age of 30 in the starting line up? hardly the glowing promotion of the fountain of youth surely?

 

The key to us should be signing players no matter there age, getting performances out of them, then selling them.

There lies the problem; people care where the players come from. It doesn't matter at all, we should be fielding the best players we have irrespective of where they have 'learned their trade' or what age they are. You don't get any prizes for playing lots of your development players.

I have no problem with us lining up without a single player that has come through the 'academy' if it gets us more wins.

 

[STGBuddy]

2 hours ago, gc_SMFC said:

The key to us should be signing players no matter there age, getting performances out of them, then selling them.

There lies the problem; people care where the players come from. It doesn't matter at all, we should be fielding the best players we have irrespective of where they have 'learned their trade' or what age they are. You don't get any prizes for playing lots of your development players.

I have no problem with us lining up without a single player that has come through the 'academy' if it gets us more wins.

 

and if we were winning then maybe this debate wouldn't happen ...but when we aren't playing well and things haven't started well then the discussion about what the problem is will take place.

I don't think its a case of people caring where players come from... but any team of any worth should encourage the development of young players and try their best to provide a platform for them ...otherwise the last person out should switch the lights out.

So if that's what you feel , and I'm only asking the question, who should worry about the development of young talent if not a club like ours?

[gc_SMFC]

25 minutes ago, STGBuddy said:

and if we were winning then maybe this debate wouldn't happen ...but when we aren't playing well and things haven't started well then the discussion about what the problem is will take place.

I don't think its a case of people caring where players come from... but any team of any worth should encourage the development of young players and try their best to provide a platform for them ...otherwise the last person out should switch the lights out.

So if that's what you feel , and I'm only asking the question, who should worry about the development of young talent if not a club like ours?

You make it sound like we're performing some sort of vital service to youth development, when in reality we've produced a handful of average players. 

The youth set up is definitely part of the problem, it hasn't produced good enough players, it hasn't seen significant returns that can be used to develop the club. We can't afford to provide a platform for players who aren't currently good enough for first team football.

People seem to be pinning their hopes on producing a squad of players from our academy. It just won't happen, if we want to remain competitive.

All this has little to do with Rae though, just as it has little to do with any of our previous managers. He isn't responsible for how narrow our youth scouting range is, and how the youth coaches attempt to coach players. They can only pick those they think are good enough.

Judging managers on their 'youth' policy is an awful way to run a football club. Results are the only thing that matter, if that's with a team of journeymen over 35 or a group of 18 year olds makes absolutely no difference.

[STGBuddy]

So you think the manager should have nothing to do with influencing the youth set up at his own club ? Really ? I appreciate Rae hasn't been there long but to suggest that the youth set up should have zero link to the first team is bonkers.

academy teams should have their standards set by the first team in terms of shape and that should run through every group .. Otherwise you have coaches at all age groups in the same football club potentially playing any way they see fit and in any formation? 

Youre right it's a results business but you can't just be shortsighted on the first team and hope , through pure luck that you'll stumble across a gem. Otherwise why have a youth set up at all ?

Edited September 4, 2016 by STGBuddy

[gc_SMFC]

11 hours ago, STGBuddy said:

So you think the manager should have nothing to do with influencing the youth set up at his own club ? Really ? I appreciate Rae hasn't been there long but to suggest that the youth set up should have zero link to the first team is bonkers.

academy teams should have their standards set by the first team in terms of shape and that should run through every group .. Otherwise you have coaches at all age groups in the same football club potentially playing any way they see fit and in any formation? 

Youre right it's a results business but you can't just be shortsighted on the first team and hope , through pure luck that you'll stumble across a gem. Otherwise why have a youth set up at all ?

Definitely, the manager should have minimal input into the youth setup. Managers are lucky to last two years, even shorter here, whereas the youth development process should be continuous, avoiding short cycles where different people put different training systems in place. It's madness to let any manager dictate how the youth set-up should be run, when their only aim is safeguarding their own job, which means short term results, and a natural neglect of youth. Why should a manager care how a 16 year old is developing when he's likely to either never be good enough, or never actually play under him.

A youth development manager, should be responsible for overseeing the tactical and technical development of players in a standalone role. Any successful player should be able to adjust into the first team football style of play.

As I've said, praising or criticising a manager on his youth development is an awful way of rating a manager.

[kevo_smfc]

21 hours ago, gc_SMFC said:

We should be looking to develop players through the academy, but for it to be any level of success we need to be attracting potential youth players from across Europe, in the hope one can be sold, in order to fund the scouting of the next batch.

And further afield imo. I think with the fans ownership in place that there could be more of a chance of being able to discuss possible avenues of linking up with youth setups abroad, especially in places like Canada and the U.S.

Its fair enough trying to bring through your own homegrown players, but cash could be generated through unearthing talents from overseas, where their opportunities may be limited.  

[Kendo]

1 hour ago, gc_SMFC said:

Definitely, the manager should have minimal input into the youth setup. Managers are lucky to last two years, even shorter here, whereas the youth development process should be continuous, avoiding short cycles where different people put different training systems in place. It's madness to let any manager dictate how the youth set-up should be run, when their only aim is safeguarding their own job, which means short term results, and a natural neglect of youth. Why should a manager care how a 16 year old is developing when he's likely to either never be good enough, or never actually play under him.

A youth development manager, should be responsible for overseeing the tactical and technical development of players in a standalone role. Any successful player should be able to adjust into the first team football style of play.

As I've said, praising or criticising a manager on his youth development is an awful way of rating a manager.

Sir Alex built St Mirren, Aberdeen and Man Utd around the youth system and transformed the youth system to meet his needs.

 

[STGBuddy]

2 hours ago, gc_SMFC said:

Definitely, the manager should have minimal input into the youth setup. Managers are lucky to last two years, even shorter here, whereas the youth development process should be continuous, avoiding short cycles where different people put different training systems in place. It's madness to let any manager dictate how the youth set-up should be run, when their only aim is safeguarding their own job, which means short term results, and a natural neglect of youth. Why should a manager care how a 16 year old is developing when he's likely to either never be good enough, or never actually play under him.

A youth development manager, should be responsible for overseeing the tactical and technical development of players in a standalone role. Any successful player should be able to adjust into the first team football style of play.

As I've said, praising or criticising a manager on his youth development is an awful way of rating a manager.

Possibly the most negative thought process I've heard and an assumption that players will never be good enough....how depressing

So Guardiola when at Barcelona or City should just hope that his youth tries to play like his fist team philosophy? and then expect them just to pick it up when they get a chance to train with the first team? along with the big step up? yeah that's really fair on the boy

Youth/Academy is about preparing them for first team action so they can hit the ground running

what you're describing is just disjointed negativity

 

 

[gc_SMFC]

37 minutes ago, Kendo said:

Sir Alex built St Mirren, Aberdeen and Man Utd around the youth system and transformed the youth system to meet his needs.

 

How long do we realistically expect any of our managers to be here? 

17 minutes ago, STGBuddy said:

Possibly the most negative thought process I've heard and an assumption that players will never be good enough....how depressing

So Guardiola when at Barcelona or City should just hope that his youth tries to play like his fist team philosophy? and then expect them just to pick it up when they get a chance to train with the first team? along with the big step up? yeah that's really fair on the boy

Youth/Academy is about preparing them for first team action so they can hit the ground running

what you're describing is just disjointed negativity

 

 

But the most realistic thought process. 

Of course, he's brand new into the Man City job, any youth products likely to be play in his tenure will have been coached in a totally different style to what he's currently implementing. Some of the first team will struggle to adjust. Never mind the fact, there's a slim chance of any of these players making any first team appearances for Man City on a regular basis.

Barcelona can afford to sign players that fit to their system, their youth system productivity has slowed as well. We are not in a position to have one style throughout the club, and we never will be, unless we come over a massive influx of money.

We can however focus on all round development of youth, creating a long term program, that has no interference from the first team manager, other than the occasional player being called into the first team. Any youth policy worth any value, will have attempted to teach the players the basic fundamentals of being able to tactically adapt to different styles. We certainly shouldn't be expecting any of the youth team to be successful first team players.  

It's really not disjointed at all. Youth development is a standalone process, a successful youth development process intakes large amounts of players from across the world, and churns out improved products, a few get sold, a few make a first team performances then are sold, then the majority end up on the scrap heap, a few may get lucky and play to a better standard as their career progresses.

Having a manager who is only here for two seasons at most dictating anything to do with youth policy is madness, and will only see us continue to produce below average players.

 

Edited September 5, 2016 by gc_SMFC

[oaksoft]

On 3 September 2016 at 5:46 PM, TopCat said:

 

Can't imagine sacking Rae will be too expensive, his contract is up in May. A wee mutual consent agreement may suit both parties if things don't turn around in September.

 

Get your wallet out then.

[STGBuddy]

1 hour ago, gc_SMFC said:

How long do we realistically expect any of our managers to be here? 

But the most realistic thought process. 

Of course, he's brand new into the Man City job, any youth products likely to be play in his tenure will have been coached in a totally different style to what he's currently implementing. Some of the first team will struggle to adjust. Never mind the fact, there's a slim chance of any of these players making any first team appearances for Man City on a regular basis.

Barcelona can afford to sign players that fit to their system, their youth system productivity has slowed as well. We are not in a position to have one style throughout the club, and we never will be, unless we come over a massive influx of money.

We can however focus on all round development of youth, creating a long term program, that has no interference from the first team manager, other than the occasional player being called into the first team. Any youth policy worth any value, will have attempted to teach the players the basic fundamentals of being able to tactically adapt to different styles. We certainly shouldn't be expecting any of the youth team to be successful first team players.  

It's really not disjointed at all. Youth development is a standalone process, a successful youth development process intakes large amounts of players from across the world, and churns out improved products, a few get sold, a few make a first team performances then are sold, then the majority end up on the scrap heap, a few may get lucky and play to a better standard as their career progresses.

Having a manager who is only here for two seasons at most dictating anything to do with youth policy is madness, and will only see us continue to produce below average players.

 

Clearly we disagree ;o)

If you don't expect any youth players to become first team players then why sign them? is that how you would sell the club to them? 'Welcome to St Mirren, you can sign for us but the reality is you probably wont be good enough' ....good luck with that.

Managers expect to get sacked.... but plan like it wont happen....

I'm just glad you aren't in charge of the youth....or are you?

[gc_SMFC]

The youth setup should be run as a bonus, in the hope that something comes good out of it. But to try and build a team from it, is an awful away of trying to create a good team. 

No manager expects to get sacked, but it's generally not in their interest to be planning 2 years in advance, when 5 bad results on the trot can see them get the sack.

Back to my key point, judging any manager on the youth setup is an awful way of deciding to hire or fire a manager; because it's down to random chance, that a player develops in a particular time frame. A manager should not be responsible fore deciding which 16 year old is worthy of a contract or not.

They should only be responsible for deciding when a player is now in the first team.

 

 

[STGBuddy]

1 hour ago, gc_SMFC said:

The youth setup should be run as a bonus, in the hope that something comes good out of it. But to try and build a team from it, is an awful away of trying to create a good team. 

No manager expects to get sacked, but it's generally not in their interest to be planning 2 years in advance, when 5 bad results on the trot can see them get the sack.

Back to my key point, judging any manager on the youth setup is an awful way of deciding to hire or fire a manager; because it's down to random chance, that a player develops in a particular time frame. A manager should not be responsible fore deciding which 16 year old is worthy of a contract or not.

They should only be responsible for deciding when a player is now in the first team.

 

 

Like I say , I couldn't disagree more with you but I guess that's why the forum is here. Rae is being judged on performances , nothing else, but you cant get away from the team dynamic.

If a Manager has no link to his academy at his own club then he isn't managing the club. Two of the longest serving managers in recent times Dario Gradi and Paul Tisdale ( Crewe and Exeter) lasted so long due to being able to produce young players, not to solely rely on but to supplement their team.

Once they are in the first team , the manager should know all about them , their development , strengths, weaknesses and how they are going to hit the ground running.

6 players 30 plus? what price are you getting for them even if they are a superstar for a season? zero.... and where are the young players coming from that you are going to sell on when they do well?

[shull]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Get your wallet out then.

MODS!!!!!!!! 

[gc_SMFC]

7 minutes ago, STGBuddy said:

Like I say , I couldn't disagree more with you but I guess that's why the forum is here. Rae is being judged on performances , nothing else, but you cant get away from the team dynamic.

If a Manager has no link to his academy at his own club then he isn't managing the club. Two of the longest serving managers in recent times Dario Gradi and Paul Tisdale ( Crewe and Exeter) lasted so long due to being able to produce young players, not to solely rely on but to supplement their team.

Once they are in the first team , the manager should know all about them , their development , strengths, weaknesses and how they are going to hit the ground running.

6 players 30 plus? what price are you getting for them even if they are a superstar for a season? zero.... and where are the young players coming from that you are going to sell on when they do well?

Why was their a point made about Raes supposed comments on the youth set-up then? Along with comments made about Gus on his 'dislike' of youth. 

Managers don't produce young players though. That's youth coaches role. Managers are solely concerned about first team results.

They'll only be a handful of managers at all levels who have regular active input into the youth setup. Most will occasionally get reports, maybe watch some games of potential first team candidates then that's it. It's not their job to coach young players, especially in academy set ups. 

If they've played well for a season, excellent that's what we require. You don't get anything extra points for starting with 11 young players, than what you do with 11 over 30's. 

 

 

 

 

[STGBuddy]

3 minutes ago, gc_SMFC said:

Why was their a point made about Raes supposed comments on the youth set-up then? Along with comments made about Gus on his 'dislike' of youth. 

Managers don't produce young players though. That's youth coaches role. Managers are solely concerned about first team results.

They'll only be a handful of managers at all levels who have regular active input into the youth setup. Most will occasionally get reports, maybe watch some games of potential first team candidates then that's it. It's not their job to coach young players, especially in academy set ups. 

If they've played well for a season, excellent that's what we require. You don't get anything extra points for starting with 11 young players, than what you do with 11 over 30's. 

 

 

 

 

Never mentioned Gus and I said that some at the club had mentioned Rae had been critical of youth, I was pointing out that I didn't think that would be helpful if that was the case.

Again , I disagree that there are only a handful of managers who engage with the youth set up. It really isn't as rare as you think.

No one is saying anything about extra points , or a community duty, but for a club like ours you need to invest in trying to bring players through because we don't have the funds to entice them from other clubs...or when we do they are over 30 and no use long term ...or indeed , as is the case just now ...the short term